Armstrong.Pdf

EIDE Ê Foundations of Ontology Series Editors Otávio Bueno, Javier Cumpa, John Heil, Peter Simons, Erwin Tegtmeier, Amie L. Thomasson Volume 9 Francesco F. Calemi (Ed.) Metaphysics and Scientic Realism Ê Essays in Honour of David Malet Armstrong Edited by Francesco F. Calemi Copyright-Text ISBN 978-3-11-045461-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-045591-5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliograe; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston Cover image: Cover-Firma Typesetting: le-tex publishing services GmbH, Leipzig Printing and binding: Druckerei XYZ ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Tuomas E. Tahko Armstrong on Truthmaking and Realism 1 Introduction The title of this paper reects the fact truthmaking is quite frequently considered to be expressive of realism. What this means, exactly, will become clearer in the course of our discussion, but since we are interested in Armstrong’s work on truthmaking in particular, it is natural to start from a brief discussion of how truthmaking and realism appear to be associated in his work. Armstrong’s interest in truthmaking and the integration of the truthmaker principle to his overall system happened only later in his career, especially in his 1997 book A World of States of Aairs and of course the 2004 Truth and Truthmakers. Since the 2004 book is the most complete account of Armstrong’s thinking with regard to truthmaking, that book will be our primary source (especially given that he changed his mind about a few issues between the 1997 and the 2004 books). The theme is certainly present in his earlier work as well, but the notion of truthmaking, which Armstrong got from C. B. Martin, was not as well formulated in the literature. The seminal paper by Mulligan, Simons and Smith (1984) had not yet popularised the notion. In the introduction to his Truth and Truthmakers, Armstrong outlines the origins of the notion in Australia: Martin used the idea of truthmaking in his work against counterfactual accounts of material objects due to the phenomenalists. Armstrong himself rst took advantage of the truthmaker principle in his attempt to resist dispositional/subjunctive accounts of mental states due to behaviourists such as Gilbert Ryle (Armstrong 1973, 11.). The now famous slogan, according to which the truthmaker insight ‘prevents the metaphysician from letting disposi- tions “hang on air”’ originates in Armstrong’s criticism of Ryle (Armstrong 2004, 3). It is thus partly because of this historical usage of the ‘truthmaker insight’ that truthmaking is often associated with realism. But the situation is certainly more complicated than that when we look into the details. One reason for the complica- tions regarding truthmaking and its potential ability to capture realist intuitions is that many of the best known theories of truthmaking are very closely tied to certain ontological views that already make realist commitments. Among these is Armstrong’s own version of truthmaking, which is integrated with his ontology of states of aairs. Naturally, the states of aairs ontology has some important implications for his conception of truthmaking. The most obvious of these implications Tuomas E. Tahko: University of Helsinki, email: tuomas.tahko@helsinki. 208 Ë Tuomas E. Tahko is that, according to Armstrong, truthmakers are facts – albeit he prefers to call them states of aairs: ‘entities having such forms as a’s being F and a’s having R to b’ (Armstrong 2004, 18). Of course, as Armstrong (2004, 4) readily admits, the idea of truthmaking can be separated from the question of what truthmakers in fact are. In any case, for Armstrong the truthbearers are true propositions – although there are some caveats, e.g., he considers propositions to be ‘possible intentional objects’ and takes it that a ‘naturalist’ cannot accept a realm of propositions (ibid., 16; 1997, 131). Moving on to the truthmaking relation, there are a couple of things that, I believe, can be said without much controversy. One of these is that whatever we take the actual truthmakers to be, and, I suppose, even regardless of the nature of the supposed truthmaking relation between propositions and reality, we can in any case say that the (possible) correspondence between a proposition and the reality, i.e., between the proposition and the truthmaker, is not, in general, a one-one correspondence.¹ This is the view that Armstrong (2004, 16) takes and, in essence, seems to be what many other proponents of truthmaking would go for as well (see for example Lowe 2006, 182). The reason for opting for a many-many relation is simple enough: a single truthmaker can quite clearly be a truthmaker for several truthbearers and correspondingly there might be several truthmakers which serve as a sucient truthmaker for a given proposition. Perhaps it could be argued that there is always some minimal truthmaker for each truth, but as Arm- strong points out, many truths do also have several minimal truthmakers, such as the proposition <there exists an x such that x is a human being> (Armstrong 2004, 21).² Another aspect that appears to be fairly uncontroversial is that truthmaking is some kind of an asymmetrical relation between propositions and something in the world. This something in the world could be facts or states of aairs, as in Arm- strong’s case, or tropes, or something quite dierent, depending on your account of truthmakers. Another way to put this is to say that a truthmaker for a particular truth is some portion of reality in virtue of which the truth is true. This ‘in virtue of’ relation is generally thought to be cross-categorical, the portion of reality being some entity or entities and the other being truth (which is not an entity!) (see Armstrong 2004, 5). The exact nature of the truthmaking relation is not uncontroversial though: one possibility is that it is an entailment relation between the truthmaker and the truth of the proposition, but it has also been argued that we are dealing with a 1 Note that ‘propositions’ could be considered merely as a placeholder here, depending on one’s take on what the truthbearers are. 2 Where the angled brackets describe a proposition, following Horwich 1998. For discussion on minimal truthmakers, see Tahko and O’Conaill forthcoming. Armstrong on Truthmaking and Realism Ë 209 grounding relation here, in which case truth would be grounded in entities (cf. Rodriguez-Pereyra 2005). There is also the question of whether truthmaking is an internal or an external relation (Armstrong 1997, 115-116). Armstrong favours the rst alternative, and it does perhaps seem initially more plausible that truthmaking is an internal relation, but there are various problems with this idea as well (cf. David 2005). Each of these issues would require a paper of its own, but we will mostly set them aside here, focusing instead on the more general question regarding truthmaking and realism. However, we will need at least an initial formulation of the truthmaking relation to get started. Take one formulated in terms of the ‘in virtue of’ locution, which produces a familiar truthmaker principle: (TM) Necessarily, if a proposition <p> is true and has a truthmaker, then there is some entity in virtue of which it is true. This formulation of (TM) entails (though is not the same as) Truthmaker Necessi- tarianism: the existence of a truthmaker is sucient for the truth of those propositions it makes true. Armstrong (2004, 5–7) defends Truthmaker Necessitarianism, appealing to the slogan mentioned above, i.e., if a given truth (a true proposition) would lack a truthmaker, then its truth would ‘hang on air’ quite like Ryle’s dispositional truths. Indeed Truthmaker Necessitarianism is a widely shared assump- tion amongst truthmaker theorists, even though it is dicult to come up with a conclusive argument in favour of it: I do not have any direct argument [for Truthmaker Necessitarianism]. My hope is that philosophers of realist inclinations will be immediately attracted to the idea that a truth, any truth, should depend for its truth for something ‘outside’ it, in virtue of which it is true. (Armstrong 2004, 7.) We will not discuss Truthmaker Necessitarianism in much more detail than this, nor the other one of Armstrong’s controversial theses, Truthmaker Maximalism, i.e., the thesis that every truth must have a truthmaker.³ (TM) does not, of course, entail Truthmaker Maximalism. 2 Truthmaking and realism It is well-known that Armstrong postulates an intimate connection between truthmaking and realism. The mediator here is correspondence, or more precisely, the 3 For a brief defence of Truthmaker Maximalism, see Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006. 210 Ë Tuomas E. Tahko correspondence theory of truth. It appears that, for Armstrong, truthmaker theory could be understood simply as a more sophisticated version of the correspondence theory. There are several passages in Armstrong’s work that explicitly sug- gest this: [T]he Correspondence theory tells us that, since truths require a truthmaker, there is something in the world that corresponds to a true proposition. The correspondent and the truthmaker are the same thing. (1997, 128) Propositions correspond or fail to correspond to reality. [If Armstrong’s view of propositions is correct], then it becomes pretty clear that the correspondence theory of truth can and should be upheld. (2004, 16) The terms of the correspondence relation are truthmakers and truths.

Load more